Google's domain tasting policy, though well meaning, is small potatoes

Implications: Google's domain tasting policy makes sense, but, predictably, it addresses a very small concern.  Click fraud and a complete lack of transparency are more vital, though this lack of transparency also vaulted Google over Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft.  In the vein of openness (OpenSocial, Android, etc), Google will inevitably have to cast more light on its opaque business processes.

Analysis:

Domain tasting is really a drop in the bucket, as Google considers policing its space.  What the domain tasting suit really sheds light on is the inherent misuses of the system by unsavory businesses, and the difficulty that Google has in cracking down on these abusers.

 

When I headed up the e-commerce operations for a wireless company, I saw how bad the situation could get.  Online wireless is a hugely competitive business, with little differentiation among the various online carriers and distributors and huge price competition.  This mix brings out some of the worst from competitors, and we saw some very unhealthy behavior.

Click fraud was prevalent, apparently from competitors who clicked on our ads in order to drive costs up.  We received multiple checks from Google in response and a number of discussions with them.  (Yahoo and Microsoft’s MSN were lower down on our attack list because our bills to Google were so much larger and the offenses more obvious. AOL’s group IPs also play into this, but that would be for a more in-depth conversation.)  The people at Google treated us quite amicably and brought us to the table for discussions. 

 

Site fraud was also rampant, as one competitor used multiple domain names to point to their main site in order to increase search engine optimization and dominate the paid search listings.  Domain tasting can also play into this arena.  A positive policy move came out of the talks that we had with Google a couple years back, as they restricted multiple sites that pointed to the same domain, shutting down a few competitors.

 

Google is rather opaque when it comes to dealing with advertisers.  They don’t divulge what is behind the black box that separates the advertiser from the means at which their advertising is distributed.  Google claims that this wall prevents advertisers from gaming the system, and they are right, to an extent.  But Google is also worried about exposing themselves, to competitors as Yahoo and Microsoft and to advertisers such as Procter and Gamble or Sears. 

 

As we move to a more open world, and Google is becoming more open with OpenSocial for social networks and Android’s open platform for mobile, they will also have to become more open in their base AdSense business and fend off more of these anti-competitive behaviors.